Hmmm, I disagree (Score 1)

I disagree with the basic premises of the analogy presented. The corporate buyer isn't buying the computer as such, rather, they are buying the processing cycles. Contrary to the article,a cash discount for the computer would be inappropriate given the nature of the good. Economists assume that producers (ie sellers of computer cycles) make decisions based on future costs and benefits; in this case the cost of the computer is a sunk cost (and a factor of production), and it has no bearing on the amount the "seller" of cycles should expect to receive. The "nickel per hour" model is invalid based on simple economics. A far more suitable model would be one where the price of computing cycles is not fixed, but floating, similarly to any other marketable commodity you'd care to mention and traded through an exchange. Any first year microeconomics student knows that in a free market, supply and demand interact to determine a fair price. So if I had to use my computer to write a report (or play Quake :) the price that would tempt me to stop and sell my computing cycles to a P2P company would have to be very high, however if I wasn't using my computer at all, I wouldn't mind selling cycles for a very low price.